The Syrian Revolution struggles on

Following a demonstration to mark the fourth anniversary of the Syrian Revolution, Mark Boothroyd argues the reputation of socialist organisations has been seriously damaged by their failure to stand alongside Syrians who have continued fighting for freedom in terrible conditions.

15 March 2015 marked the fourth anniversary of the Syrian Revolution. On 14 March, over a thousand Syrians from across Britain marched through central London to mark the start of the uprising against the regime of Bashar Al-Assad. The march was loud, with activists chanting and singing the revolutionary songs that have been the hallmark of the Syrian uprising through four years of demonstration, protest and bloody fighting.

Despite reports to the contrary, the Syrian revolution is not over. Its flame is kept alive by the Syrian diaspora, who from Brazil to Romania, Germany to Malaysia, Michigan to London, keep actively supporting the Syrian revolutionaries struggling for freedom in terrible conditions.

Mostly bravely, and demonstrating the immense resilience of the Syrian people through four years of barbaric repression, demonstrations were held in the liberated suburbs of Damascus. Among the bombed rubble of buildings which have received countless barrel bombs and shells from the regime’s armouries, revolutionaries gathered to remember the martyrs and reiterate their determination to keep fighting for the overthrow of the regime.

The march in London was lively, with many young Syrians leading the chants and singing. Despite everything the mood of the march was positive and quietly hopeful. This is in contrast with this time last year: the situation is not as dire as it was a year ago, and revolutionary forces have secured some small but important victories, defending Aleppo from encirclement and liberating many towns and villages in the south of Syria.

While the rebels were reeling from attacks by Assad regime forces backed by Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Da‘esh turned its retreat into Iraq into an offensive, taking Mosul and securing huge amounts of US weaponry from the retreating Iraqi army.

This was to be used against the Syrian rebels when Da‘esh returned a couple of months later, storming back into Syria and seizing most of the East of the country including Raqqa, before declaring their ‘caliphate’ in the summer. At the time, rebels sarcastically remarked that the first US weapons they saw in the conflict were in the hands of Da‘esh fighters coming from Iraq.

Now there is a stalemate, with the regime unable to advance, but rebels struggling to make significant gains, Da‘esh pre-occupied with fighting in Iraq, and on the retreat before Kurdish and rebel forces around Kobane.

Hope over despair

Given what has happened what reason do Syrians have to be hopeful? For those who have not been following the uprising, there appear to be few. For those who still support the struggle, there are many.

The sheer persistence of the rebel opposition is one. Despite facing unrelenting attacks for four years, with the Syrian regime backed to the hilt by Russian imperialism, and bankrolled by the Iranian government by as much as $500 million per month to sustain the Syrian economy, the rebels have held out.

Into this gap have stepped Hezbollah fighters, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and Afghan mercenaries who are leading the battles around Dara‘a and Aleppo. This brings the rebels into direct conflict with the Syrian regime’s backers, and gives their involvement ever more the character of a foreign occupation. This is drawing opposition even from within regime’s ranks: a leading general defected, and two of Assad’s spy chiefs were sacked after one viciously attacked the other over Iranian involvement in the Dara‘a province.

Idlib clocktower is adorned with the flag of the revolution once again

In the last several days, Islamic brigades, FSA battalions and the Nusra Front have liberated Idlib City, capital of the rebel held Idlib province, providing an immense boost to opposition morale and piling pressure on the Assad regime whose supply lines between Latakia and Aleppo are now under threat. The regime forces were shown to be hollow, crumbling in Idlib in just four days, in a city they have had three years to fortify and defend.

Is the revolution dead?

Politically, the principles of the revolution are kept alive by civil protest groups, and by revolutionary brigades. Protests continue every Friday against the regime, although they are far less numerous than they were 2-3 years ago as people struggle daily to secure enough food to eat and fuel to warm their homes and shelters.

And the spirit is kept alive in the refugee camps. Protests continue among Syria’s vast refugee population, approaching 4.5 million people across Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and the borders of Syria. Many became refugees when regime forces attacked their neighbourhoods or cities to attempt to quell protests, or instituted scorched earth campaigns to wipe rebel towns and villages off the map. Many of those who lead the civil, non-violent movement left when threatened by the regime, or as the conflict became militarised and there was little room for peaceful protest between the regime and the rebel groups. They are now in the camps, and work to sustain the revolutions principles, hoping to return to Syria once the regime is gone, and restore Syria.

Isolated and desperate in the capital of human suffering

This is not to say the situation is not devastating. Over half the population has been displaced; 4.5 million are refugees outside the country. A conservative estimate puts the death toll at 250,000, with over a million injured, many of them disabled for life. 250,000 people are still being held in regime jails, and there are an estimated 200,000 people missing. 650,000 people are living under siege from regime forces in towns and cities across Syria. Syria is now the capital of human suffering.

Added to this, the Syrian people feel completely abandoned and isolated. The international community in the form of the world’s governments has failed to come to their aid, and their revolution has been slandered by most progressive and anti-imperialist forces around the world. The barbarity unleashed by the regime with the tactic support of all the imperial powers has engendered little more than hand wringing from most socialist or progressive groups, and in many cases merited diversionary propaganda or outright apologism for the crimes of the regime.

Large sections of international Palestine solidarity movements have remained shamefully silent on the issue. A brave few (see also here) have been consistent in their solidarity and their work has moved parts of the solidarity movement from an initial silence to more engagement, due to the position of Palestinian refugees in Yarmouk, but the overall solidarity with Syrian revolutionary activists and protests over the treatment of Syria’s people by the regime remains painfully and disappointingly weak.

This was in evidence on the march when there were only a handful of socialist activists in attendance. There were no trade union banners, no political parties, no solidarity campaigns save the Syria Solidarity Movement. At the rally at the end of the march speakers were all ones who had a direct relation to what was happening. Paul Conroy, a journalist who reported from the besieged neighbourhood of Baba ‘Amr in Homs in 2012, spoke about his commitment to keep reporting the truth, to stop the governments of the world attempting to rehabilitate the Assad regime and bury the revolution. Fatima Khan, the mother of Abbas Khan, a British surgeon kidnapped by the regime and murdered in prison, called for Damascus to “rise up” and get rid of “killer Assad before he kills you!” Clara Connolly from the Syria Solidarity Movement asked simply “Where is the left?” expressing the shock and resigned disappointment of many that a revolutionary struggle whose effects are going to be as long lasting and as strongly felt as the Nakba or the war on Iraq, could receive so little solidarity.

While the opposition wrote their cries of desperation across a thousand banners, youtube videos and Friday protests, the Left were paralysed by an unwillingness to break with Cold War ideologies, and defunct anti-war institutions. The selective internationalism of the anti-war movement has meant a generation of young Muslims have been radicalised outside, and in many cases in opposition to the narrative pushed by organisations like Stop the War. In the absence of solidarity efforts in Britain, some of these youth have taken it upon themselves to join the struggle against Assad, fighting and dying with the Free Syrian Army or Islamic brigades.

With the rise of ISIS, and the erasure of rebel groups from the narrative over Syria, both in the mainstream media and the left, this democratic revolution has been obscured, and many Muslim teenagers radicalised by the atrocities they witness online are now heading to Syria not to fight for freedom but for Da‘esh.

In the absence of political and material solidarity from radical and revolutionary progressive forces, liberal and conservative voices have dominated the narrative of how to aid Syria. This has had a marked effect on Syrians’ own solidarity efforts. A revolution which was anti-imperialist to its core has felt left with little option other than to beg the imperial powers for aid.

In response, the White Helmets, Syria’s volunteer Civil Defence organisation who save people from the rubble of barrel bombings and other regime attacks, issued a call for a No Fly Zone over Syria, to stop the bombs and protect civilians.

Faced with these demands, some on the Left will declare this is ‘pro-imperialist’ and use this as an excuse to not take action. This will just be a continuation of their policy of the last four years of inaction over Syria, and provide no support for the people on the ground suffering and dying. This in turn leaves no one for Syrians to turn to, except Islamic organisations and the ‘international community’. Syria, whose country is occupied by Israel, is home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and who share a border with Iraq, do not need lectures on the dangers of imperialism. What they need is support and solidarity.

If there are any activists left who want to rescue the Left’s reputation over Syria, they need to overcome this narrow minded and dogmatic position and engage with Syria solidarity efforts and the Syrian opposition community.

Supporting Syrians doesn’t necessitate advocating a No Fly Zone. There are dozens of grass-roots solidarity projects which can be supported, either providing support for refugees, medical aid to field hospitals, financing and publicising civil society groups practising non-violent resistance, or grass-roots mutual aid efforts to rebuild economies and societies in Syria’s shattered towns and villages. It is this the Left must involve itself in, for the sake of the Syrian people, and to demonstrate in practice its professed support for freedom and democracy.

Syrian non-violent groups have launched a campaign aimed at reaching out to Western activists and bringing them into solidarity work with the Syrian cause. Their campaign is named Planet Syria after the fact they seem to be treated like they are from another planet, despite raising the same slogans and demands for freedom as people struggling all over the world. They are calling for an international day of action on 7 April to demand an end to the barrel bombs, and negotiations to find a peaceful resolution to the bloody violence which has crushed the peaceful protests, and almost destroyed the revolution.

There are 11 comments

Wow, no comments. It’s clear that the fundamental responsibility for the present situation in Syria lies with the criminal Assad regime, and that the only principled socialist and internationalist position is unconditional solidarity with those genuinely indigenous organizations of the Syrian people in struggle against the regime. As “we are not Charlie Hebdo”, not Islamophobes, this certainly includes any authentically indigenous, self-described Islamic organizations, on the understanding that at this point this is a democratic and not yet socialist, revolution, and therefore the political forms will be multifarious in accordance with the region, while at the same time we will call for the Syrian democratic revolution to become a socialist revolution, while pointing to the danger of *democratic counterrevolution*, as in Ukraine presently, and one the Islamic political form can also present, as in the case – unmentioned here – of cat’s paws for well-known outside reactionary, capitalist regional powers, such as Al Nusra.

Practically speaking, I believe it is the case that too much is expected out of the actually existing international socialist left. It is still hobbled by the residues of what I call “Third International reformism”, one of whose features was “anti-imperialist” support for the “national bourgeoisie” of ex-colonial countries such as Syria. The formal collapse of a viable “Third International reformism” with the dissolution of the Soviet Union therefore cast much of the self-described socialist left in a state of deep disorganization and disorientation, one some have only begun to crawl out from under. This is the reality. It is not to be taken as an excuse for wrong political behavior.

In addition, and as a result of the same general world-historical process that has produced the general disorientation of the socialist left, the situation in Syria is extraordinarily complex in its concrete details. Just to cite two of relevance to socialists:

– Socialists must recognize the right of such organizations to call for military assistance from any source available, even if that is one’s own imperialist country. Ironically, Lenin made precisely this same point in a different context when, responding to attacks by Anglo-French imperialism for exiting the war by cutting a peace deal with Germany at Brest-Litvosk, stated loud and clear that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Soviets would not hesitate to cut the same deal with the Anglo-French against the Germans. At the same time, as this article implicitly states, it is unreasonable to expect socialist to strengthen the hand of their class enemy at home by calling on these to whip up a war fever at home in the interests of an intervention in Syria, hardly an ideal environment for socialist politics in the home country of those socialists.

– All revolutions involve some degree of foreign intervention, whether wanted or (most often) not. In the case of a small state like Syria, in the middle of a global cockpit pulverized mainly by U.S. imperialism, that foreign intervention can threaten to overwhelm and freeze (or strangle) the indigenous revolutionary process. One need only mention Bahrain here. Hence the whole question of foreign intervention looms much larger for the Syrian revolutionary movement.

– The right of foreign socialists to “pick and choose” what to accept as legitimate organized expressions of the Syrian revolution. This is said full in the knowledge that this can come off sounding like “arrogance from afar”, but it would naive foolishness, and irresponsible, to simply close our eyes and accept whatever is presented to us. The social forces involved, political ideology, and especially the kinds of support received from abroad are all legitimate criteria for solidarity. These is no doubt, for example, that there are some indigenous support in Syria for IS, not to mention Al Nusra, yet even RS21 excludes IS, thereby excluding those Syrian supporters as well.

What a piece and about time someone said it. Well done Mark, hopefully its the impetus for some form of movement within the left, because so far it really has been shameful and Syrians will not remember the stance of the West (usually saved by Leftist solidarity) with any fondness (to put it lightly).

Brilliant piece, its about time someone said something about this. well done Mark. Hopefully its an impetus for some movement on the Left because its stance so far has been shameful, and its truly a measure of how far away it is from its original values that the mainstream position of the left today is shared by people like Peter Hitchens, Tony Blair, Pamela Gellar, Michelle Bachmann, Nigel Farage, Sarah Palin etc etc.. There has been a remarkable rise of neoconservative rhetoric by wide swathes of the left which will be a stain on its memory unless there is quickly a conscientious awakening. If there isn’t any change Syrians are unlikely to remember anything from the West (usually partially salvaged by the role of Leftist solidarity) with much fondness (to say the least) – with its inhuman refugee policies, attacks on charities, pressure on Arab governments to starve factions of funding, bombing of rebel factions last year (without any coverage incidentally mainstream or radical), or even the saving grace of its progressive factions sticking up for them not being afforded to them.

“In the last several days, Islamic brigades, FSA battalions and the Nusra Front have liberated Idlib City”

So, a group linked to al Qaeda (al Nusra), which has the long-term goal of forming an Islamic emirate under Sharia, law has “liberated” Idlib?
Just how did this reversal of fortune come about and is there any similarity with the previous conquest of Raqqa by ISIS?

Like ISIS, al Nusra got hold of anti-tank missiles from defecting “moderate” opposition forces.
Like ISIS it has received money from donors in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.
The main difference seems to be that al-Nusra plays down its longer-term political goals in the interests of forming a “united front”, to win over the population and keep its donors happy.

Given Idlib’s proximity to the Turkish border, is it just possible that al-Nusra has been getting assistance from Erdogan’s government too?
After all, Erdogan has come out in support of Saudi Arabia bombing against the Shiite Houthis in Yemen.

Compare this to Turkey’s role in the siege of Kobane:
The Turkish government prevented PKK supporters in Turkey from providing relief to the town, describing them as “terrorists”, but allowed in Peshmergas from the oil rich Autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq.

Having allowed ISIS to advance on Kobane from their base in Raqqa, the town was reduced to rubble by US bombing before it was liberated.
Turkish troops then entered Syrian territory to liberate a pile of bones from the Tomb of Suleyman Shah, an ancestor of the Ottomans.
But there’s no sign that Turkey legalise the PKK or release Ocalan.

Meanwhile, the US has started to bome the centre of Tikrit, where ISIS and ex-Baathists are surrounded by Iranian-backed Shia militias.
The question is, are they trying to destroy ISIS, or to stop the pro-Iranian forces from gaining control of Iraq?

ISIS was not funded by either the Gulf states or Saudi but initially by the Assad regime and Iran and then later by oil deals with Assad. The Saudis and GS are enemies of ISIS. The claims of their support were started by the Iranians and Russians after ISIS was sent in to Iraq to help give the Iranian backed Maleki Govt an eexcuse to call for emergency support fron Iran, Russia, and the US. Remember, the Iraqi govt withdrew 30,000 police and army from Mosul and left all the weapons and money for ISIS to take. Army troops were ordereed not to take their heavy weapons with them. It was a setup to fund and arm ISIS. Earlier ISIS was alllowed by Iraqi Army troops to enter Fallujah unmolested after locals had taken over the city. Of course some local resistance against the Iraqi regime think that ISIS is at least partially on their side, unlike in Syria where all the groups fighting Assad also know that ISIS is an enemy.

Turkish troops then entered Syrian territory to liberate a pile of bones from the Tomb of Suleyman Shah, an ancestor of the Ottomans.
But there’s no sign that Turkey will legalise the PKK, or release Ocalan.

Meanwhile, the US has started to bomb the centre of Tikrit, where ISIS and ex-Baathists are surrounded by Iranian-backed Shia militias.
The question is, are they trying to destroy ISIS, or to stop the pro-Iranian forces from gaining control of Iraq?